Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Annual Report be endorsed. Reason for decision To update Council and wider stakeholders surrounding the work of Governance and Audit Committee.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Final Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement be approved. (2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Section 151 Officer in liaison with the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee to make any final adjustments to the Final Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement as necessary. (3) T H A T the response to the Audit Wales Audit Enquiries at Appendix B to the report be noted. (4) T H A T the Audit Wales Audit of Accounts Report at Appendix C to the report be noted. (5) T H A T the Letter of Representation attached at Appendix D to the report be approved. Reasons for decisions (1) Council is the body responsible for the final approval of the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement. (2) The Audit of the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement is complete. (3) Audit Wales had written to both offices and those charged with governance with a set of queries to provide assurance on fraud, legal and related parties. (4) The Audit of Accounts Report was for noting and any adjustments required had been made in the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement being put forward for approval. (5) To enable the submission of the Letter of Representation ahead of the sign off of the Accounts by the Auditor General.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025- 2028, as detailed be approved. Reason for decision Having regard to there having been no consultation responses received, and to ensure that the Council fulfilled its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority. FINAL DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT 2024/25 (REF) The Leader presented the report, and highlighted that Members would be aware of this as it had been shared in draft in a number of areas including a joint Scrutiny session in July, where recommendations were made, and Governance and Audit Committee, which recommended the evidence and insight assessment changed from “Good” to “Fair”, and that it was the role of Council to approve the final report. Councillor Carroll reflected that considerable improvement needed to be made within the Council as demonstrated by the change in approach to car parking, and the change in decision based upon its impact which had generated media attention, alongside an impact to residents. He believed this was not an isolated incident and that there needed to be more honesty over performance and believed the report did not reflect residents’ experiences. Councillor Dr. Johnson noted that the process had been different this year due to changes in Scrutiny arrangements, which would need longer to consider its impact, but reflected that during the Joint Scrutiny session, it was difficult to get into the detail of approximately 500 RAG ratings. He also shared that during the session, he had questioned the methodology and moderation, as the achievement was exactly the same as the target for “Good”, and that despite several indicators being Red, the assessment remained the same, which supported the feeling of this report being the Council marking its own homework. He felt that external statistics, such as Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, proved the impact of working, and noted an increased in the number of LSOAs in the most deprived areas. A recorded vote was undertaken as below: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Member For Against Abstain Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Member For Against Abstain Rhys Thomas √ Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 29 20 1 RESOLVED – T H A T the Final Draft Vale of Glamorgan Annual Self-Assessment 2024/25 be approved. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting. VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF) Councillor Sivagnanam presented the report and noted this was a critical stage in ensuring there was an up-to-date planning framework which met the needs of communities. She advised that Members would be aware that the strategy for the Replacement Local Development Plan was agreed by Full Council in September last year, and that due to concerns around deliverability, sites at Northwest Barry, land at Neptune Road and Hayes Lane were being consulted upon. She shared that there had been 159 individuals and organisations who had made representations, less than the number when consulting upon Northeast Barry, but still valid concerns. She reflected that at Place Scrutiny previously residents made powerful and relevant objections about these sites, and that she recognised concerns surrounding infrastructure, with specific concerns around increased traffic at Weycock Cross, but that developers would be required to fund highways improvements to deal with traffic issues, and that this would be part of the planning process moving forward. She also noted that there would need to be an increase in school places, and access to health care, which they were working on the Health Board to explore. She noted that Barry was the largest and most sustainable settlement in the Vale, identified as a key settlement in in the RLDP hierarchy and that it was a national growth area, alongside the need for affordable housing was critical, as there were around 7,000 households on the Council's housing register with 4,000 expressing a preference to live in Barry alongside nearly 900 people living in inappropriate housing in Barry. Councillor Dr. Johnson indicated that they were not present during the Scrutiny meeting, but upon review, agreed with Councillor Hooper’s assessments during the meeting, in supporting the scheme for Neptune Road and noting the lack of facilities and public transport in the Bendricks. He reflected upon the Weycock Cross proposal, which he believed to be the most controversial, and shared that the Conservative Party had previously built around 700 houses into the prospective Local Development Plan in this area in 2012, and that the Labour Group opposed this in local media and sought to redistribute this across the Vale. He shared that the Plaid Cymru Group had concerns about the site for a number of reasons, including the loss of the green belt, traffic problems, the lack of public transport and likely over- reliance on cars, so would propose an amendment to remove this scheme from the proposals. He further noted that the number of people on the housing list was not a core evidence basis, queried how this would address the 900 individuals in unsuitable housing in Barry, and why other areas where planning already existed such as the college site on Colcot Road or Western Gateway were not part of this proposed scheme. Councillor Collins shared that they acknowledged the need for housing, there was a concern over the lack of community facilities, such as shops, doctors and dentists as a remote part of Barry which was not as well connected, with no buses on a Sunday or between 7.30am and 4.30pm, meaning people would need to use cars. Councillor Campbell noted the Cabinet Member’s comments around developers funding infrastructure improvement, and how Section 106 monies as part of the development of Golwg Y Mor in Rhoose had been put forward for infrastructure improvements had been used but were not enough and the Council needed to also do more to improve this moving forward. She further expressed that Council needed to take a role in improving active travel and public transport, particularly in the Western Vale area, as there needed to be consideration as to how these proposals would impact upon these residents. Councillor Carroll agreed that the proposed development at Weycock Cross was problematic and would have an impact upon traffic, which was at capacity, busy all day and worsened by increasing the number of dwellings. He commented that of 129 representations, all bar 3 signalled opposition to the plan, which he felt they were right to do so as it was clearly unsuitable for development, and that despite being less than other sites representations, this still represented a considerable number of people who the Council should listen to. Councillor Franks shared that he felt this was being considered due to the failure to properly assess the Northeast Barry proposal, which included 900 houses, which failed and had to be withdrawn. He noted that the Labour Party had previously opposed this site, whilst the Conservative Party had supported it, and believed this reflected chaos by Cabinet, and that the proposal should be withdrawn. Councillor Perry raised that at Place Scrutiny Committee, a resident raised concern about flood water at Weycock Cross and expressed doubt over the robustness of modelling in terms of flood risk assessment and drainage, and that he felt the planning system was flawed if the building of more houses resulted in increased flooding. He further reflected that there would be the need to own cars, and that there was a need to reduce the dependence on cars to support the climate emergency and that active travel needed to be properly considered. He finally commented that increasing developments were seeing more delays and congestion and that current approaches to mitigation do not work. Councillor Goodjohn emphasised the need to consider future generations who would need affordable housing. He reflected that this proposal did not address the need in the best way possible and that the original proposal did, but this was reduced based upon representations. He agreed around the need to increase active travel and public transport but reflected the plan could not address everything right now and that there was a desperate need for housing in Barry. Councillor Wilson stated the belief that no-one wanted new homes next to them, and that a lot of other homes in the area were modern, but that the Council need to evolve as households and their needs changed. He reflected upon changing attitudes to transport, including increased usage of electric cars and active travel, both of which needed to be considered. He shared that the Vale of Glamorgan was a popular place to live, with demand exceeding supply, and house prices increasing at rates greater than inflation, and that there was increasing deprivation, and a need to supply affordable housing. He felt that no viable alternatives had been proposed, so would support inclusion of this site. Councillor Sivagnanam responded that this proposal was about the delivery of affordable homes, with mitigations identified in the report and considered as part of the ongoing planning process. She reflected that there was a need to balance housing with the needs of the environment and transport, and felt this proposal achieved the right balance. She indicated that previous opposition from the Labour Party was due to the deliverability of the proposal, which she felt to be addressed in the report, and that whilst there had been representations, there would still be numerous in Barry who had not been heard who would support the development. A Recorded Vote was taken to consider the removal of the Weycock Cross site from the proposals as below: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Member For Against Abstain Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Member For Against Abstain Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Rhys Thomas Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Member For Against Abstain Total 23 24 2 The amendment was not carried and the debate returned to discussing the original proposals. Councillor Mahoney acknowledged the need for housing but felt that building housing in high density areas with no access to services such as Doctors and Schools, which had not increased in recent times. He shared that he had lived in the Bendricks area for 13 years, there were no facilities excluding a café, and a bus service subsidised by Section 106 monies and that Sully School had not been upgraded in several years, despite recently losing a significant part of its budget. He noted that the Bendricks area was cut off from the rest of the area and without transport apart from walking, which did not suit all situations and urged the Council to stop building housing in concentrated places without enough services and infrastructure. Councillor Ernest stated that very little had changed in Sully in a number of years apart from increased housing and noted that the development of Sully Hospital had been beneficial in providing several new homes, but that there was limited public transport, which tended to run infrequently. He added that building more housing on Hayes Road would not lead to the services needed such as medical facilities, doctors and shops, and that if residents did not own a car, they would struggle with everyday tasks. The Leader acknowledged that in relation to infrastructure, there were things that the Council was responsible for and things it was not responsible for, and that the role of Council was to often lobby and negotiate on behalf of people, as demonstrated by the Health hub at Western Gate and the lobbying of the health board for Eagleswell in Llantwit Major. She also noted that whilst the Council had limited funding for bus services, there were two services which covered the Bendricks (88 and 94), and that when she used the bus, residents often commented positively on the Council housing which had been built in the area. She further stated that the area did not have an abundance of green fields to be built upon, so sites were invited to be considered as part of the LDP, with the Council considering most appropriate based upon the agreed strategy. The Leader emphasised that today’s proposals were about supporting people into the right accommodation, supporting people in looking towards their futures, and made no apologies in allocating these sites as they supported people with affordable housing. Councillor Perkes shared that they felt the Bendricks was becoming more of a community, with a development planned in partnership with Cardiff Council and Lovell Homes, containing affordable homes which were built to Welsh Housing Quality Standards. She noted concerns around lack of services but shared that services would grow as the population grew. Councillor Perry noted that increasing house prices were global issue, with housing becoming an investment which profited few people, and that the problem was not about the supply of housing, but the financing of housing. He reflected that building costs had increased alongside labour so there was inflation built into the system impacting upon their affordability. He sought clarification as to what was meant by inappropriate housing as he felt no definition was provided and would welcome similar detail surrounding the housing waiting list. He also challenged Members to further consider the environmental impacts upon the increased housing, as climate risks were increasing, and re-emphasised the point to invest in the transport network and subsidise public transport to be accessible and reduce the dependent on cars. Councillor Wilson stated that the Replacement Local Development Plan went through a detailed process with planning professionals, with sites tested upon their viability. He reflected that Transport for Wales were spending approximately £1 billion on electrification and new stations in Wales, and that the Council were bidding for stations. He noted that he felt the area was a great place to live, an amazing destination, and that he was a product of Council housing. He shared that the Council needed a legal basis to defend things which were outside of the RLDP, and that when it came to looking at the viability for these sites, it was essential that facilities were considered. Councillor John acknowledged the need for housing, particularly in the Western Vale, and welcomed the Leader’s work in lobbying the Health Board to improve medical services in the area which were oversubscribed, but suggested Welsh Government needed to intervene to push the development of health care provision, as the Council needed to consider facilities when trying to develop and build communities. Councillor Hodges indicated that the Weycock Cross development was not about social housing, but a commercial venture, and that when considering the Bendricks area, he did not believe the view that facilities would follow housing as services were reducing generally. He reflected on the Waterfront development, which was previously proposed as a potential hotel, and believed this to be a failure of the Council to promote Barry as a tourist destination, which would have a broader economic benefit. He also noted that he believed that developers had shafted the Council for a number of years and that it needed to be better in standing up to big business. Councillor Sivagnanam responded that the Housing Development team were holding pre-application consultations and invited Members and residents to participate in these moving forward to make their views clear. She emphasised that this was national growth area and there was a need for housing, particularly affordable homes in Barry, and failure to agree could leave the Council vulnerable to speculative applications. A further Recorded Vote took place on all three of the original recommendations as presented within the report: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Member For Against Abstain Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Rhys Thomas Member For Against Abstain Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 26 22 1 RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted. (2) T H A T the actions set out in the Consultation Report be endorsed. (3) T H A T the inclusion of the three potential housing sites as allocations in the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) be approved. Reasons for decisions (1&2) To outline to Members the issues raised during the public consultation exercise on Housing Growth in Barry. (3 ) To allow officers to progress with the preparation of the Deposit RLDP. TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT 2025/26 (REF) The Leader presented the regular update of the Council’s Treasury Management approach and highlighted that the report noted economic factors driving the UK economy alongside forecasts, and that there were no policy changes as of 30th September, 2025. She further noted the Council’s capital expenditure and prudential indicators were included in Appendix A, and that the investment portfolio listed the investments as £51.775 million as of 30th September, 2025, up from £17.19 million in April 2025. She shared that there was an average interest rate of 4.22% this year, which meant there was approximately £1.19 million interest accrued that the new external borrowing was at £6 million at an average rate of 4.56%, and that this was borrowed at shorter terms of up to 7 years, so it could be reborrowed if rates were to decrease. She further noted that the Council were prudent in terms of borrowing and investments and had not considered any debt rescheduling opportunities this year to date due to current interest rates. RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Annual Report for the period 2025/26 be approved Reason for decision To update Council surrounding the Council’s approach to Treasury Management. REVIEW OF THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL’S PETITION SCHEME (REF) The Leader presented the report and advised that the previous Petition Scheme had been considered by Council in 2022, and that this was a requirement under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 to produce a scheme which considered how a petition could be submitted, who could submit a petition, how and by when the Council acknowledged receipt and how the Council responded. Councillor Dr. Johnson stated that he felt the petitions process was quite difficult for ordinary members of the public to use, and that awareness needed to be raised as only 3 petitions had been submitted in 3 years, with only 1 reaching the threshold, and shared how it had worked positively when looking at School crossings. He noted that the Council needed to ensure that that there was an need to promoted awareness of this process to the public as to how they could get involved, to which the Leader responded that there was a need to ensure Vale residents were signatories, and as outlined within the report, the platform for this was being reviewed to be more user friendly as it was important to engage more effectively and through the most appropriate means. RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Petition Scheme be approved. Reason for decision To update the Council’s approach to fulfilling statutory legislation relating to petitions from the public. VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF) RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C69, 17th July, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s Constitution) be noted. Reason for decision The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C84, 4th September, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s Constitution) be noted. Reason for decision The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence across all policies and public spaces be adopted. (2) T H A T training be strengthened so staff can identify and respond to abusive behaviour and coercive control. (3) T H A T education on consent, healthy relationships and gender equality be supported, ensuring safe and accessible reporting routes. (4) T H A T the Council calls for sustainable national funding for VAWG support services. (5) T H A T the White Ribbon accreditation to demonstrate commitment to positive change, supporting gender equality and ending gender-based violence be renewed. Reason for decisions (1-5) Having regard to the vote being carried on the Motion.
These were received from Councillors Janice Charles, Brandon Dodd and Susan Lloyd-Selby.
No declarations of interests were received.
Councillor Carroll noted that the minutes covered the meeting on 29th September, 2025, and reflected that he was happy to accept the minutes but stressed that it was important that even if Members disagreed with one another, it was essential that discussion took place and that Members could voice their opinions. RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meetings held on 29th September, 2025 and 3rd November, 2025 be approved as a correct record.
The Mayor noted that this had been a busy period, and that she had attended several engagements, including giving out certificates to children who attended Barry Bike Club, which the Active Travel Team and Vale Housing Community Investment had run alongside Pedal Power. The club promoted and ran cycling sessions throughout the spring and summer in Iolo Park and aimed to reduce health inequalities through targeted cycling support to promote physical activity to local young children. She shared that it was heartwarming to see staff had arranged for some children without their own bikes to be given one so they could ride to school. She also attended a fair-trade breakfast which she was excited to attend alongside Fair-Trade Wales and local fair-trade groups organised by Food Vale and shared that fair trade was a global movement to ensure producers, especially in developing countries, received fair prices for their products and had better working conditions. She further shared that at the end of the breakfast; all attendees wrote their pledges to encourage fair trade on a fairtrade banana and that she was pleased to find that many of the Vale’s school lunches from The Big Fresh Catering Company contained fair trade ingredients. The Mayor also attended ‘Shifting Perspectives’, which was a powerful survivor photography exhibition at Art Central Gallery in Barry, created in collaboration with Steffi Andrews, a professional photographer who volunteered her own time, and Vale Domestic Abuse Services. This exhibition was created by 8 incredible women who shared their story of domestic abuse through photography and brought forward the lived experiences of survivors in the Vale; shining a light on the realities of domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, and what rebuilding looked like afterwards. She reflected that it was an incredibly powerful, yet hopeful exhibition that had a deep impact and encourage others to attend as it was on until 10th January, and it was important to show survivors that their voices mattered. The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services also announced that there would be an upcoming Cabinet decision concerning new car parking charges being suspended until Spring 2026 at Penarth Cliff Walk, Cold Knap and Bron-y-Mor, as he had listened to local residents and business surrounding their concerns. He also recognised that visitors to the area should help to contribute and maintain local services, but there needed to be a balanced between local services and the need to generate income, whilst further noting that there was pressure on traders during winter months. He advised that there would need to be a flexible approach moving forward and that his focus now would be to work with residents and businesses in developing a new set of proposals for car parking in the area. Councillor Haines presented a petition for consideration with a number of signatories proposing the creation of allotments in the St Athan area.
(i) Question from Mr. A. Smith Please can you advise when the changing facilities at Cowbridge Leisure Centre will be brought up to the standard of the other changing rooms provided at Barry, Penarth and Llantwit Major Leisure Centres. Cowbridge Leisure Centre, as I'm sure you are aware, plays a significant part in the Health and Wellbeing of the population of the Cowbridge area and, as I understand, is the most visited public building in Cowbridge. However, the quality of the changing rooms, that haven't undergone a major upgrading since the centre was built almost 40 years ago, badly let customers and yourselves down. I had expected the recently published placemaking plans for Cowbridge to highlight both the importance of the facility and the need for improvements, but the facility is not highlighted in the report. I would be grateful if you could explain its exclusion particularly given the importance of Leisure Centres in other Councils in Wales’ placemaking plans. The clearest example of this being the joint levelling up and placemaking plans in Caerphilly resulting in the construction of a new Leisure and Wellbeing Centre. I have spoken to representatives of Parkwood Leisure who are fully aware of the issues at Cowbridge, but I understand the responsibility for refurbishment works is the Council's. I have therefore also met with Council Officers who acknowledge the issue but cannot provide me (and other users) with a timescale for works to refurbish changing rooms. Reply from the Cabinet Member for Sport, Leisure and Wellbeing Firstly, I would like to thank Mr. Smith for his question. I am aware that he is a committed user, being a former customer of the month, and I am also aware that he represents the views of the majority with regard to the condition of the existing changing facilities. I am also aware that Mr. Smith has met with my Officers and representatives of Parkwood Leisure who have all been keen to see the changing rooms refurbished to enhance the facility and further increase attendances. I feel it is also important to share with Councillors that Cowbridge Leisure Centre is presently experiencing its highest ever attendances, having significantly more visits than any other publicly provided facility in the Town, and is delivering over £600,000 of Social Value per year (a growth of 12% in the past year). I would also highlight to Councillors that, unlike any other Council in Wales, our partnership with Parkwood does not require a revenue subsidy to provide our Leisure Centres and generates a revenue surplus. In addition, the Leisure Management Contract is presently delivering £5.75 million in Social Value that includes Health Benefits, Social and Community and Individual Development. I am therefore very pleased to confirm that the Council is committed to refurbishing the changing rooms at Cowbridge Leisure Centre within the next 12 months. This will complete the refurbishment of all changing facilities at all our Leisure Centres. I will ask my Officers to contact Mr. Smith, to confirm our intentions and to provide an estimated refurbishment date. The works will be funded by a variety of funding sources including Pride in Place, Internal Capital funding, Section 106 monies and, subject to confirmation, other grant contributions.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the Annual Report be endorsed. Reason for decision To update Council and wider stakeholders surrounding the work of Governance and Audit Committee.
The Leader presented an overview of the Draft Governance and Audit Committee Annual report, which considered the work of the Committee during the year and how they met their terms of reference. She shared that due to the nature of its work, this Committee was highly interesting when you attended and engaged, especially given their critical role was supporting good governance. RESOLVED – T H A T the Annual Report be endorsed. Reason for decision To update Council and wider stakeholders surrounding the work of Governance and Audit Committee.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Final Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement be approved. (2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Section 151 Officer in liaison with the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee to make any final adjustments to the Final Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement as necessary. (3) T H A T the response to the Audit Wales Audit Enquiries at Appendix B to the report be noted. (4) T H A T the Audit Wales Audit of Accounts Report at Appendix C to the report be noted. (5) T H A T the Letter of Representation attached at Appendix D to the report be approved. Reasons for decisions (1) Council is the body responsible for the final approval of the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement. (2) The Audit of the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement is complete. (3) Audit Wales had written to both offices and those charged with governance with a set of queries to provide assurance on fraud, legal and related parties. (4) The Audit of Accounts Report was for noting and any adjustments required had been made in the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement being put forward for approval. (5) To enable the submission of the Letter of Representation ahead of the sign off of the Accounts by the Auditor General.
The Leader presented the completed Annual Statement of Accounts for 2024/25, which had commenced in July 2025 and led to an unqualified audit opinion, and noted that the audit of accounts related to the Big Fresh Catering Company were still ongoing. She noted that a number of amendments had been agreed and reflected in Appendix A to the report, and that materiality was set at £5 million for the accounts with a triviality limit of £280,000, but there were lower levels of materiality applied to related parties at £10,000 and renumeration disclosures were £1,000. She shared that the key financial headlines in the report were that there was an overall reduction in usable reserves, reducing by £10.487 million from £88.589 million to £78.102 million, including a £12.523 million reduction in the general fund and a reduction in capital grants, alongside a £360,000 increase in Housing Revenue Accounts reserves. She further noted an increase in usable capital receipts, of which £1.2 million related to the City Deal, that pension liabilities had increased from £10.522 million to £17.310 million, and that property, plant and equipment totalled £975 million after IFRS 16 adjustments and re-evaluations. The Leader further signposted to the amendments to the accounts which were included in the report, and noted there was a £580,000 appropriation between the Housing Revenue Account and Children Services, and that the misstatement would be corrected in the 2025-26 accounts. She also shared the Annual Governance Statement presented no significant changes with reasonable assurance provided, and external audit considered that there were no fraud or legal compliance issues identified. She closed by noting that following agreement, the letter would be signed by Leader, Mayor, Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer. Councillor Dr. Johnson thanked the Council’s staff alongside Audit Wales for undertaking a complex piece of work, and that an unqualified audit opinion was a compliment. He noted the comment surrounding the £580,000 grant situation and was happy to accept the reason, that the accounts showed resilience, and welcomed spending more than anticipated in some key areas such as investing in housing stock, as an important area. He further reflected that these areas would be explored shortly by Council as part of the annual budget setting process. RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Final Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement be approved. (2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Section 151 Officer in liaison with the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee to make any final adjustments to the Final Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement as necessary. (3) T H A T the response to the Audit Wales Audit Enquiries at Appendix B to the report be noted. (4) T H A T the Audit Wales Audit of Accounts Report at Appendix C to the report be noted. (5) T H A T the Letter of Representation attached at Appendix D to the report be approved. Reasons for decisions (1) Council is the body responsible for the final approval of the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement. (2) The Audit of the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement is complete. (3) Audit Wales had written to both offices and those charged with governance with a set of queries to provide assurance on fraud, legal and related parties. (4) The Audit of Accounts Report was for noting and any adjustments required had been made in the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement being put forward for approval. (5) To enable the submission of the Letter of Representation ahead of the sign off of the Accounts by the Auditor General.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025- 2028, as detailed be approved. Reason for decision Having regard to there having been no consultation responses received, and to ensure that the Council fulfilled its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority. FINAL DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT 2024/25 (REF) The Leader presented the report, and highlighted that Members would be aware of this as it had been shared in draft in a number of areas including a joint Scrutiny session in July, where recommendations were made, and Governance and Audit Committee, which recommended the evidence and insight assessment changed from “Good” to “Fair”, and that it was the role of Council to approve the final report. Councillor Carroll reflected that considerable improvement needed to be made within the Council as demonstrated by the change in approach to car parking, and the change in decision based upon its impact which had generated media attention, alongside an impact to residents. He believed this was not an isolated incident and that there needed to be more honesty over performance and believed the report did not reflect residents’ experiences. Councillor Dr. Johnson noted that the process had been different this year due to changes in Scrutiny arrangements, which would need longer to consider its impact, but reflected that during the Joint Scrutiny session, it was difficult to get into the detail of approximately 500 RAG ratings. He also shared that during the session, he had questioned the methodology and moderation, as the achievement was exactly the same as the target for “Good”, and that despite several indicators being Red, the assessment remained the same, which supported the feeling of this report being the Council marking its own homework. He felt that external statistics, such as Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, proved the impact of working, and noted an increased in the number of LSOAs in the most deprived areas. A recorded vote was undertaken as below: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Member For Against Abstain Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Member For Against Abstain Rhys Thomas √ Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 29 20 1 RESOLVED – T H A T the Final Draft Vale of Glamorgan Annual Self-Assessment 2024/25 be approved. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting. VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF) Councillor Sivagnanam presented the report and noted this was a critical stage in ensuring there was an up-to-date planning framework which met the needs of communities. She advised that Members would be aware that the strategy for the Replacement Local Development Plan was agreed by Full Council in September last year, and that due to concerns around deliverability, sites at Northwest Barry, land at Neptune Road and Hayes Lane were being consulted upon. She shared that there had been 159 individuals and organisations who had made representations, less than the number when consulting upon Northeast Barry, but still valid concerns. She reflected that at Place Scrutiny previously residents made powerful and relevant objections about these sites, and that she recognised concerns surrounding infrastructure, with specific concerns around increased traffic at Weycock Cross, but that developers would be required to fund highways improvements to deal with traffic issues, and that this would be part of the planning process moving forward. She also noted that there would need to be an increase in school places, and access to health care, which they were working on the Health Board to explore. She noted that Barry was the largest and most sustainable settlement in the Vale, identified as a key settlement in in the RLDP hierarchy and that it was a national growth area, alongside the need for affordable housing was critical, as there were around 7,000 households on the Council's housing register with 4,000 expressing a preference to live in Barry alongside nearly 900 people living in inappropriate housing in Barry. Councillor Dr. Johnson indicated that they were not present during the Scrutiny meeting, but upon review, agreed with Councillor Hooper’s assessments during the meeting, in supporting the scheme for Neptune Road and noting the lack of facilities and public transport in the Bendricks. He reflected upon the Weycock Cross proposal, which he believed to be the most controversial, and shared that the Conservative Party had previously built around 700 houses into the prospective Local Development Plan in this area in 2012, and that the Labour Group opposed this in local media and sought to redistribute this across the Vale. He shared that the Plaid Cymru Group had concerns about the site for a number of reasons, including the loss of the green belt, traffic problems, the lack of public transport and likely over- reliance on cars, so would propose an amendment to remove this scheme from the proposals. He further noted that the number of people on the housing list was not a core evidence basis, queried how this would address the 900 individuals in unsuitable housing in Barry, and why other areas where planning already existed such as the college site on Colcot Road or Western Gateway were not part of this proposed scheme. Councillor Collins shared that they acknowledged the need for housing, there was a concern over the lack of community facilities, such as shops, doctors and dentists as a remote part of Barry which was not as well connected, with no buses on a Sunday or between 7.30am and 4.30pm, meaning people would need to use cars. Councillor Campbell noted the Cabinet Member’s comments around developers funding infrastructure improvement, and how Section 106 monies as part of the development of Golwg Y Mor in Rhoose had been put forward for infrastructure improvements had been used but were not enough and the Council needed to also do more to improve this moving forward. She further expressed that Council needed to take a role in improving active travel and public transport, particularly in the Western Vale area, as there needed to be consideration as to how these proposals would impact upon these residents. Councillor Carroll agreed that the proposed development at Weycock Cross was problematic and would have an impact upon traffic, which was at capacity, busy all day and worsened by increasing the number of dwellings. He commented that of 129 representations, all bar 3 signalled opposition to the plan, which he felt they were right to do so as it was clearly unsuitable for development, and that despite being less than other sites representations, this still represented a considerable number of people who the Council should listen to. Councillor Franks shared that he felt this was being considered due to the failure to properly assess the Northeast Barry proposal, which included 900 houses, which failed and had to be withdrawn. He noted that the Labour Party had previously opposed this site, whilst the Conservative Party had supported it, and believed this reflected chaos by Cabinet, and that the proposal should be withdrawn. Councillor Perry raised that at Place Scrutiny Committee, a resident raised concern about flood water at Weycock Cross and expressed doubt over the robustness of modelling in terms of flood risk assessment and drainage, and that he felt the planning system was flawed if the building of more houses resulted in increased flooding. He further reflected that there would be the need to own cars, and that there was a need to reduce the dependence on cars to support the climate emergency and that active travel needed to be properly considered. He finally commented that increasing developments were seeing more delays and congestion and that current approaches to mitigation do not work. Councillor Goodjohn emphasised the need to consider future generations who would need affordable housing. He reflected that this proposal did not address the need in the best way possible and that the original proposal did, but this was reduced based upon representations. He agreed around the need to increase active travel and public transport but reflected the plan could not address everything right now and that there was a desperate need for housing in Barry. Councillor Wilson stated the belief that no-one wanted new homes next to them, and that a lot of other homes in the area were modern, but that the Council need to evolve as households and their needs changed. He reflected upon changing attitudes to transport, including increased usage of electric cars and active travel, both of which needed to be considered. He shared that the Vale of Glamorgan was a popular place to live, with demand exceeding supply, and house prices increasing at rates greater than inflation, and that there was increasing deprivation, and a need to supply affordable housing. He felt that no viable alternatives had been proposed, so would support inclusion of this site. Councillor Sivagnanam responded that this proposal was about the delivery of affordable homes, with mitigations identified in the report and considered as part of the ongoing planning process. She reflected that there was a need to balance housing with the needs of the environment and transport, and felt this proposal achieved the right balance. She indicated that previous opposition from the Labour Party was due to the deliverability of the proposal, which she felt to be addressed in the report, and that whilst there had been representations, there would still be numerous in Barry who had not been heard who would support the development. A Recorded Vote was taken to consider the removal of the Weycock Cross site from the proposals as below: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Member For Against Abstain Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Member For Against Abstain Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Rhys Thomas Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Member For Against Abstain Total 23 24 2 The amendment was not carried and the debate returned to discussing the original proposals. Councillor Mahoney acknowledged the need for housing but felt that building housing in high density areas with no access to services such as Doctors and Schools, which had not increased in recent times. He shared that he had lived in the Bendricks area for 13 years, there were no facilities excluding a café, and a bus service subsidised by Section 106 monies and that Sully School had not been upgraded in several years, despite recently losing a significant part of its budget. He noted that the Bendricks area was cut off from the rest of the area and without transport apart from walking, which did not suit all situations and urged the Council to stop building housing in concentrated places without enough services and infrastructure. Councillor Ernest stated that very little had changed in Sully in a number of years apart from increased housing and noted that the development of Sully Hospital had been beneficial in providing several new homes, but that there was limited public transport, which tended to run infrequently. He added that building more housing on Hayes Road would not lead to the services needed such as medical facilities, doctors and shops, and that if residents did not own a car, they would struggle with everyday tasks. The Leader acknowledged that in relation to infrastructure, there were things that the Council was responsible for and things it was not responsible for, and that the role of Council was to often lobby and negotiate on behalf of people, as demonstrated by the Health hub at Western Gate and the lobbying of the health board for Eagleswell in Llantwit Major. She also noted that whilst the Council had limited funding for bus services, there were two services which covered the Bendricks (88 and 94), and that when she used the bus, residents often commented positively on the Council housing which had been built in the area. She further stated that the area did not have an abundance of green fields to be built upon, so sites were invited to be considered as part of the LDP, with the Council considering most appropriate based upon the agreed strategy. The Leader emphasised that today’s proposals were about supporting people into the right accommodation, supporting people in looking towards their futures, and made no apologies in allocating these sites as they supported people with affordable housing. Councillor Perkes shared that they felt the Bendricks was becoming more of a community, with a development planned in partnership with Cardiff Council and Lovell Homes, containing affordable homes which were built to Welsh Housing Quality Standards. She noted concerns around lack of services but shared that services would grow as the population grew. Councillor Perry noted that increasing house prices were global issue, with housing becoming an investment which profited few people, and that the problem was not about the supply of housing, but the financing of housing. He reflected that building costs had increased alongside labour so there was inflation built into the system impacting upon their affordability. He sought clarification as to what was meant by inappropriate housing as he felt no definition was provided and would welcome similar detail surrounding the housing waiting list. He also challenged Members to further consider the environmental impacts upon the increased housing, as climate risks were increasing, and re-emphasised the point to invest in the transport network and subsidise public transport to be accessible and reduce the dependent on cars. Councillor Wilson stated that the Replacement Local Development Plan went through a detailed process with planning professionals, with sites tested upon their viability. He reflected that Transport for Wales were spending approximately £1 billion on electrification and new stations in Wales, and that the Council were bidding for stations. He noted that he felt the area was a great place to live, an amazing destination, and that he was a product of Council housing. He shared that the Council needed a legal basis to defend things which were outside of the RLDP, and that when it came to looking at the viability for these sites, it was essential that facilities were considered. Councillor John acknowledged the need for housing, particularly in the Western Vale, and welcomed the Leader’s work in lobbying the Health Board to improve medical services in the area which were oversubscribed, but suggested Welsh Government needed to intervene to push the development of health care provision, as the Council needed to consider facilities when trying to develop and build communities. Councillor Hodges indicated that the Weycock Cross development was not about social housing, but a commercial venture, and that when considering the Bendricks area, he did not believe the view that facilities would follow housing as services were reducing generally. He reflected on the Waterfront development, which was previously proposed as a potential hotel, and believed this to be a failure of the Council to promote Barry as a tourist destination, which would have a broader economic benefit. He also noted that he believed that developers had shafted the Council for a number of years and that it needed to be better in standing up to big business. Councillor Sivagnanam responded that the Housing Development team were holding pre-application consultations and invited Members and residents to participate in these moving forward to make their views clear. She emphasised that this was national growth area and there was a need for housing, particularly affordable homes in Barry, and failure to agree could leave the Council vulnerable to speculative applications. A further Recorded Vote took place on all three of the original recommendations as presented within the report: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Member For Against Abstain Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Rhys Thomas Member For Against Abstain Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 26 22 1 RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted. (2) T H A T the actions set out in the Consultation Report be endorsed. (3) T H A T the inclusion of the three potential housing sites as allocations in the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) be approved. Reasons for decisions (1&2) To outline to Members the issues raised during the public consultation exercise on Housing Growth in Barry. (3 ) To allow officers to progress with the preparation of the Deposit RLDP. TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT 2025/26 (REF) The Leader presented the regular update of the Council’s Treasury Management approach and highlighted that the report noted economic factors driving the UK economy alongside forecasts, and that there were no policy changes as of 30th September, 2025. She further noted the Council’s capital expenditure and prudential indicators were included in Appendix A, and that the investment portfolio listed the investments as £51.775 million as of 30th September, 2025, up from £17.19 million in April 2025. She shared that there was an average interest rate of 4.22% this year, which meant there was approximately £1.19 million interest accrued that the new external borrowing was at £6 million at an average rate of 4.56%, and that this was borrowed at shorter terms of up to 7 years, so it could be reborrowed if rates were to decrease. She further noted that the Council were prudent in terms of borrowing and investments and had not considered any debt rescheduling opportunities this year to date due to current interest rates. RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Annual Report for the period 2025/26 be approved Reason for decision To update Council surrounding the Council’s approach to Treasury Management. REVIEW OF THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL’S PETITION SCHEME (REF) The Leader presented the report and advised that the previous Petition Scheme had been considered by Council in 2022, and that this was a requirement under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 to produce a scheme which considered how a petition could be submitted, who could submit a petition, how and by when the Council acknowledged receipt and how the Council responded. Councillor Dr. Johnson stated that he felt the petitions process was quite difficult for ordinary members of the public to use, and that awareness needed to be raised as only 3 petitions had been submitted in 3 years, with only 1 reaching the threshold, and shared how it had worked positively when looking at School crossings. He noted that the Council needed to ensure that that there was an need to promoted awareness of this process to the public as to how they could get involved, to which the Leader responded that there was a need to ensure Vale residents were signatories, and as outlined within the report, the platform for this was being reviewed to be more user friendly as it was important to engage more effectively and through the most appropriate means. RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Petition Scheme be approved. Reason for decision To update the Council’s approach to fulfilling statutory legislation relating to petitions from the public. VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF) RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C69, 17th July, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s Constitution) be noted. Reason for decision The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the Council’s Constitution.
REVIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GAMBLING ACT 2025 – 2025-2028 (REF) The Leader presented the report, a reference from Statutory Licencing Committee, and noted that there was a requirement for the Council to publish a statement of principles governing its licencing policy for a 3 year period, and that this related to a number of betting shops and amusement centres, where a consultation was undertaken but no responses were received. RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025- 2028, as detailed be approved. Reason for decision Having regard to there having been no consultation responses received, and to ensure that the Council fulfilled its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority. FINAL DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT 2024/25 (REF) The Leader presented the report, and highlighted that Members would be aware of this as it had been shared in draft in a number of areas including a joint Scrutiny session in July, where recommendations were made, and Governance and Audit Committee, which recommended the evidence and insight assessment changed from “Good” to “Fair”, and that it was the role of Council to approve the final report. Councillor Carroll reflected that considerable improvement needed to be made within the Council as demonstrated by the change in approach to car parking, and the change in decision based upon its impact which had generated media attention, alongside an impact to residents. He believed this was not an isolated incident and that there needed to be more honesty over performance and believed the report did not reflect residents’ experiences. Councillor Dr. Johnson noted that the process had been different this year due to changes in Scrutiny arrangements, which would need longer to consider its impact, but reflected that during the Joint Scrutiny session, it was difficult to get into the detail of approximately 500 RAG ratings. He also shared that during the session, he had questioned the methodology and moderation, as the achievement was exactly the same as the target for “Good”, and that despite several indicators being Red, the assessment remained the same, which supported the feeling of this report being the Council marking its own homework. He felt that external statistics, such as Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, proved the impact of working, and noted an increased in the number of LSOAs in the most deprived areas. A recorded vote was undertaken as below: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Member For Against Abstain Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Member For Against Abstain Rhys Thomas √ Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 29 20 1 RESOLVED – T H A T the Final Draft Vale of Glamorgan Annual Self-Assessment 2024/25 be approved. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting. VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF) Councillor Sivagnanam presented the report and noted this was a critical stage in ensuring there was an up-to-date planning framework which met the needs of communities. She advised that Members would be aware that the strategy for the Replacement Local Development Plan was agreed by Full Council in September last year, and that due to concerns around deliverability, sites at Northwest Barry, land at Neptune Road and Hayes Lane were being consulted upon. She shared that there had been 159 individuals and organisations who had made representations, less than the number when consulting upon Northeast Barry, but still valid concerns. She reflected that at Place Scrutiny previously residents made powerful and relevant objections about these sites, and that she recognised concerns surrounding infrastructure, with specific concerns around increased traffic at Weycock Cross, but that developers would be required to fund highways improvements to deal with traffic issues, and that this would be part of the planning process moving forward. She also noted that there would need to be an increase in school places, and access to health care, which they were working on the Health Board to explore. She noted that Barry was the largest and most sustainable settlement in the Vale, identified as a key settlement in in the RLDP hierarchy and that it was a national growth area, alongside the need for affordable housing was critical, as there were around 7,000 households on the Council's housing register with 4,000 expressing a preference to live in Barry alongside nearly 900 people living in inappropriate housing in Barry. Councillor Dr. Johnson indicated that they were not present during the Scrutiny meeting, but upon review, agreed with Councillor Hooper’s assessments during the meeting, in supporting the scheme for Neptune Road and noting the lack of facilities and public transport in the Bendricks. He reflected upon the Weycock Cross proposal, which he believed to be the most controversial, and shared that the Conservative Party had previously built around 700 houses into the prospective Local Development Plan in this area in 2012, and that the Labour Group opposed this in local media and sought to redistribute this across the Vale. He shared that the Plaid Cymru Group had concerns about the site for a number of reasons, including the loss of the green belt, traffic problems, the lack of public transport and likely over- reliance on cars, so would propose an amendment to remove this scheme from the proposals. He further noted that the number of people on the housing list was not a core evidence basis, queried how this would address the 900 individuals in unsuitable housing in Barry, and why other areas where planning already existed such as the college site on Colcot Road or Western Gateway were not part of this proposed scheme. Councillor Collins shared that they acknowledged the need for housing, there was a concern over the lack of community facilities, such as shops, doctors and dentists as a remote part of Barry which was not as well connected, with no buses on a Sunday or between 7.30am and 4.30pm, meaning people would need to use cars. Councillor Campbell noted the Cabinet Member’s comments around developers funding infrastructure improvement, and how Section 106 monies as part of the development of Golwg Y Mor in Rhoose had been put forward for infrastructure improvements had been used but were not enough and the Council needed to also do more to improve this moving forward. She further expressed that Council needed to take a role in improving active travel and public transport, particularly in the Western Vale area, as there needed to be consideration as to how these proposals would impact upon these residents. Councillor Carroll agreed that the proposed development at Weycock Cross was problematic and would have an impact upon traffic, which was at capacity, busy all day and worsened by increasing the number of dwellings. He commented that of 129 representations, all bar 3 signalled opposition to the plan, which he felt they were right to do so as it was clearly unsuitable for development, and that despite being less than other sites representations, this still represented a considerable number of people who the Council should listen to. Councillor Franks shared that he felt this was being considered due to the failure to properly assess the Northeast Barry proposal, which included 900 houses, which failed and had to be withdrawn. He noted that the Labour Party had previously opposed this site, whilst the Conservative Party had supported it, and believed this reflected chaos by Cabinet, and that the proposal should be withdrawn. Councillor Perry raised that at Place Scrutiny Committee, a resident raised concern about flood water at Weycock Cross and expressed doubt over the robustness of modelling in terms of flood risk assessment and drainage, and that he felt the planning system was flawed if the building of more houses resulted in increased flooding. He further reflected that there would be the need to own cars, and that there was a need to reduce the dependence on cars to support the climate emergency and that active travel needed to be properly considered. He finally commented that increasing developments were seeing more delays and congestion and that current approaches to mitigation do not work. Councillor Goodjohn emphasised the need to consider future generations who would need affordable housing. He reflected that this proposal did not address the need in the best way possible and that the original proposal did, but this was reduced based upon representations. He agreed around the need to increase active travel and public transport but reflected the plan could not address everything right now and that there was a desperate need for housing in Barry. Councillor Wilson stated the belief that no-one wanted new homes next to them, and that a lot of other homes in the area were modern, but that the Council need to evolve as households and their needs changed. He reflected upon changing attitudes to transport, including increased usage of electric cars and active travel, both of which needed to be considered. He shared that the Vale of Glamorgan was a popular place to live, with demand exceeding supply, and house prices increasing at rates greater than inflation, and that there was increasing deprivation, and a need to supply affordable housing. He felt that no viable alternatives had been proposed, so would support inclusion of this site. Councillor Sivagnanam responded that this proposal was about the delivery of affordable homes, with mitigations identified in the report and considered as part of the ongoing planning process. She reflected that there was a need to balance housing with the needs of the environment and transport, and felt this proposal achieved the right balance. She indicated that previous opposition from the Labour Party was due to the deliverability of the proposal, which she felt to be addressed in the report, and that whilst there had been representations, there would still be numerous in Barry who had not been heard who would support the development. A Recorded Vote was taken to consider the removal of the Weycock Cross site from the proposals as below: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Member For Against Abstain Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Member For Against Abstain Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Rhys Thomas Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Member For Against Abstain Total 23 24 2 The amendment was not carried and the debate returned to discussing the original proposals. Councillor Mahoney acknowledged the need for housing but felt that building housing in high density areas with no access to services such as Doctors and Schools, which had not increased in recent times. He shared that he had lived in the Bendricks area for 13 years, there were no facilities excluding a café, and a bus service subsidised by Section 106 monies and that Sully School had not been upgraded in several years, despite recently losing a significant part of its budget. He noted that the Bendricks area was cut off from the rest of the area and without transport apart from walking, which did not suit all situations and urged the Council to stop building housing in concentrated places without enough services and infrastructure. Councillor Ernest stated that very little had changed in Sully in a number of years apart from increased housing and noted that the development of Sully Hospital had been beneficial in providing several new homes, but that there was limited public transport, which tended to run infrequently. He added that building more housing on Hayes Road would not lead to the services needed such as medical facilities, doctors and shops, and that if residents did not own a car, they would struggle with everyday tasks. The Leader acknowledged that in relation to infrastructure, there were things that the Council was responsible for and things it was not responsible for, and that the role of Council was to often lobby and negotiate on behalf of people, as demonstrated by the Health hub at Western Gate and the lobbying of the health board for Eagleswell in Llantwit Major. She also noted that whilst the Council had limited funding for bus services, there were two services which covered the Bendricks (88 and 94), and that when she used the bus, residents often commented positively on the Council housing which had been built in the area. She further stated that the area did not have an abundance of green fields to be built upon, so sites were invited to be considered as part of the LDP, with the Council considering most appropriate based upon the agreed strategy. The Leader emphasised that today’s proposals were about supporting people into the right accommodation, supporting people in looking towards their futures, and made no apologies in allocating these sites as they supported people with affordable housing. Councillor Perkes shared that they felt the Bendricks was becoming more of a community, with a development planned in partnership with Cardiff Council and Lovell Homes, containing affordable homes which were built to Welsh Housing Quality Standards. She noted concerns around lack of services but shared that services would grow as the population grew. Councillor Perry noted that increasing house prices were global issue, with housing becoming an investment which profited few people, and that the problem was not about the supply of housing, but the financing of housing. He reflected that building costs had increased alongside labour so there was inflation built into the system impacting upon their affordability. He sought clarification as to what was meant by inappropriate housing as he felt no definition was provided and would welcome similar detail surrounding the housing waiting list. He also challenged Members to further consider the environmental impacts upon the increased housing, as climate risks were increasing, and re-emphasised the point to invest in the transport network and subsidise public transport to be accessible and reduce the dependent on cars. Councillor Wilson stated that the Replacement Local Development Plan went through a detailed process with planning professionals, with sites tested upon their viability. He reflected that Transport for Wales were spending approximately £1 billion on electrification and new stations in Wales, and that the Council were bidding for stations. He noted that he felt the area was a great place to live, an amazing destination, and that he was a product of Council housing. He shared that the Council needed a legal basis to defend things which were outside of the RLDP, and that when it came to looking at the viability for these sites, it was essential that facilities were considered. Councillor John acknowledged the need for housing, particularly in the Western Vale, and welcomed the Leader’s work in lobbying the Health Board to improve medical services in the area which were oversubscribed, but suggested Welsh Government needed to intervene to push the development of health care provision, as the Council needed to consider facilities when trying to develop and build communities. Councillor Hodges indicated that the Weycock Cross development was not about social housing, but a commercial venture, and that when considering the Bendricks area, he did not believe the view that facilities would follow housing as services were reducing generally. He reflected on the Waterfront development, which was previously proposed as a potential hotel, and believed this to be a failure of the Council to promote Barry as a tourist destination, which would have a broader economic benefit. He also noted that he believed that developers had shafted the Council for a number of years and that it needed to be better in standing up to big business. Councillor Sivagnanam responded that the Housing Development team were holding pre-application consultations and invited Members and residents to participate in these moving forward to make their views clear. She emphasised that this was national growth area and there was a need for housing, particularly affordable homes in Barry, and failure to agree could leave the Council vulnerable to speculative applications. A further Recorded Vote took place on all three of the original recommendations as presented within the report: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce √ Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest √ Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Member For Against Abstain Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Rhys Thomas Member For Against Abstain Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 26 22 1 RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted. (2) T H A T the actions set out in the Consultation Report be endorsed. (3) T H A T the inclusion of the three potential housing sites as allocations in the Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) be approved. Reasons for decisions (1&2) To outline to Members the issues raised during the public consultation exercise on Housing Growth in Barry. (3 ) To allow officers to progress with the preparation of the Deposit RLDP. TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT 2025/26 (REF) The Leader presented the regular update of the Council’s Treasury Management approach and highlighted that the report noted economic factors driving the UK economy alongside forecasts, and that there were no policy changes as of 30th September, 2025. She further noted the Council’s capital expenditure and prudential indicators were included in Appendix A, and that the investment portfolio listed the investments as £51.775 million as of 30th September, 2025, up from £17.19 million in April 2025. She shared that there was an average interest rate of 4.22% this year, which meant there was approximately £1.19 million interest accrued that the new external borrowing was at £6 million at an average rate of 4.56%, and that this was borrowed at shorter terms of up to 7 years, so it could be reborrowed if rates were to decrease. She further noted that the Council were prudent in terms of borrowing and investments and had not considered any debt rescheduling opportunities this year to date due to current interest rates. RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Annual Report for the period 2025/26 be approved Reason for decision To update Council surrounding the Council’s approach to Treasury Management. REVIEW OF THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL’S PETITION SCHEME (REF) The Leader presented the report and advised that the previous Petition Scheme had been considered by Council in 2022, and that this was a requirement under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 to produce a scheme which considered how a petition could be submitted, who could submit a petition, how and by when the Council acknowledged receipt and how the Council responded. Councillor Dr. Johnson stated that he felt the petitions process was quite difficult for ordinary members of the public to use, and that awareness needed to be raised as only 3 petitions had been submitted in 3 years, with only 1 reaching the threshold, and shared how it had worked positively when looking at School crossings. He noted that the Council needed to ensure that that there was an need to promoted awareness of this process to the public as to how they could get involved, to which the Leader responded that there was a need to ensure Vale residents were signatories, and as outlined within the report, the platform for this was being reviewed to be more user friendly as it was important to engage more effectively and through the most appropriate means. RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Petition Scheme be approved. Reason for decision To update the Council’s approach to fulfilling statutory legislation relating to petitions from the public. VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF) RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C69, 17th July, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s Constitution) be noted. Reason for decision The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the Council’s Constitution.
Rhan o fater a ddilynwyd ar draws 5 cyfarfod
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C84, 4th September, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s Constitution) be noted. Reason for decision The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C84, 4th September, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s Constitution) be noted. Reason for decision The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the Council’s Constitution.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence across all policies and public spaces be adopted. (2) T H A T training be strengthened so staff can identify and respond to abusive behaviour and coercive control. (3) T H A T education on consent, healthy relationships and gender equality be supported, ensuring safe and accessible reporting routes. (4) T H A T the Council calls for sustainable national funding for VAWG support services. (5) T H A T the White Ribbon accreditation to demonstrate commitment to positive change, supporting gender equality and ending gender-based violence be renewed. Reason for decisions (1-5) Having regard to the vote being carried on the Motion.
The below Notice of Motion, moved by Councillor Lis Burnett and seconded by Councillor Ewan Goodjohn at the meeting, was debated. “This Council notes: • A vigil was held on the Forecourt of the Civic Office on 21st November 2025 in recognition of White Ribbon Day 2025 and the United Nations’ Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. • The significance of the following 16 Days of Activism in raising awareness about gender-based violence against women and girls, and the importance of prioritising primary prevention to stop violence from happening in the first place. Council further notes: • The critical role that we, as decision makers, play in shaping and implementing policies that prioritise preventing gender-based violence and helping to create a more equal society where all individuals, regardless of gender, can live freely without the fear of violence. Council recognises: • The ongoing need to address and prevent gender-based violence, and the need to engage men and boys throughout society. This includes in education, in workplaces, communities and online. Council believes that • Every woman and girl has the right to live free from violence, fear and intimidation. • Tackling violence against women and girls requires prevention, education, early intervention, and properly funded specialist services. Council therefore resolves to • Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence across all policies and public spaces and: • Strengthen training so staff can identify and respond to abuse and coercive control. • Support education on consent, healthy relationships and gender equality. Ensure safe and accessible reporting routes. • Call for sustainable national funding for VAWG support services. • Renew White Ribbon accreditation to demonstrate commitment to positive change, supporting gender equality and ending gender-based violence.” The Leader presented the Motion and shared that the harm caused to victims and society relating to violence against women and girls in all forms was immeasurable, and recognised that whilst boys and men suffered abuse, the issue disproportionately impacted upon women and that we needed to create an equal society. She shared that a woman was killed every 3 days in the UK, that violence against women and girls made up 20% of all reported crime, and that the Police had recorded 103,135 rape and serious sexual offences since March 2023. She noted that White Ribbon accreditation had lapsed, that it was important this be renewed and reflected upon the manosphere and incel culture, where sections of the internet and community promote misogyny, harassment, intimidation and gaslighting. She closed by indicating that Councillors had an important role as Community Leaders in prioritising prevention of violence against women and girls. Councillor Goodjohn reflected that men were a significant proportion of contributors to violence against women and girls, with young men being a significant portion of that, and that was important to call out any kind of discrimination, threats and violence against women and girls. He shared that he had friends who had been impacted by this significantly and that it had become an epidemic online. He noted that attacks on elected women in the political sphere were increasing daily, and that we must call it out and that it must start with men and it must end with men. He closed by stating that he hoped that today would be a moment of reflection for everyone and that this raised awareness amongst Councillors and members of the public to join vigils held yearly on 25th November and call out threats made to protect women and girls across the County. Councillor Collins shared that not many would report domestic abuse or gender- based violence until it had escalated as there was an element of brainwashing by the perpetrator and asked for a future item at Live Well Scrutiny Committee surrounding the support provided by Vale Domestic Abuse Services. She further noted that there needed to be a longer-term funding model for specialist services moving away from short term grant arrangements which created administrative burden and impacted staff retention, noting this with prevalence to organisations service minority ethnic, disabled, LGBTQ+ and migrant women. Councillor Birch shared that, alongside being a Councillor, they were also a Magistrate, and that due to the widespread nature of the problem, Monday and Tuesday were set aside to consider domestic violence cases, with specialist support services provided. She further noted that in the three years up to March 2022, 249 domestic homicide victims, the suspect was male in 241 cases and 75% of them were a male partner and that every week, an average of 1.2 women were murdered, leaving behind children, parents and friends, with the effects felt for years. She reflected that domestic abuse including coercive control which was intimidation, degradation, isolation, the threat of physical and sexual violence, psychological and emotional abuse, physical or sexual abuse, financial or economic abuse, harassment and stalking, online or digital abuse were part of the sexism and misogyny that were deeply rooted in most societies and led to the lesser treatment of women. Councillor Birch also shared that only 18% of women suffering domestic abuse reported to the Police, on average, victims had been abused or attacked 50 times before getting effective help and that there were approximately one million calls to the Police annually around this. She noted the impact upon children, noting this was an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE), which could lead to future challenges such as behavioural issues, trust issues, poor relationships and potentially being abusive or entering abusive relationships, and noted the impact upon services such as education, housing, NHS and social care in supporting these individuals. Councillor E.J. Goodjohn asked Council to consider the presence of abuse in LGBTQ+ relationships, which was likely to be higher than statistics indicated, and could include identity-based coercion and control, threats to out someone, and control related to gender and sexual identity. She shared the experiences of a ward member who advised that control could look different in same sex relationships, subtler, less recognised and often unseen and closed by sharing that no one should suffer in silence. Councillor Cowpe stated that violence was a pervasive human rights violation, and highlighted the pay and employment gap, which could link to poverty. She shared that current estimates indicated that 11% of women experienced domestic abuse, and 3.2% experience sexual violence, with approximately half of all violence against women occurring in their home, where children may be present. She noted that whilst Wales had a high number of females within legislative roles, it was important to not only promote women’s independence and decision-making power in public life, but within relationships and communities. She further suggested that education be tailored to different genders based upon their experiences, towards staff who acted as first points of contact for the public, alongside increasing partnership working with agencies such as police and emphasising that empowering women’s independence was a core component of any educational approach. Councillor Godfrey noted that he agreed with the principle, but that this encapsulated all members of society, as a man may be too embarrassed or reluctant to report an issue. Councillor Payne reflected that children in Wales who experienced domestic violence, whether directly or by witnessing it, could often suffer deep emotional and psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, and trauma. It could affect their behaviour, their schooling, their friendships, and their development and many experienced sleep problems, fear and low self-esteem. She further noted that there was a link between domestic violence and homelessness, with approximately 40% of homeless women citing domestic violence as one of the causes of homelessness, and that there was a lack of affordable or social housing to move into. She also reflected many people who experienced domestic abuse were not represented in statistics as they sofa surfed, but they also needed to find a long-term solution and a safe home. Councillor John reflected that he was appalled this happened every day, and that there should be stronger sentencing for offenders. Councillor Carroll recognised that violence against women and girls was a major problem in society, with risks increased, and shared that at Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee, he asked for a review of the Corporate Safeguarding Policy following reports of grooming gangs across the country to ensure lessons were learned from elsewhere, and put in processes to ensure it did not happen here, but that this recommendation was not supported by the Committee. He reflected that we needed to be able to discuss uncomfortable topics, and that the scandal happened due to the fear of consequences, and that a culture change was needed to be comfortable and confident in challenging others. He noted that illegal migration from other nationalities contributed to this problem, with information published by the Centre for Migration Control stating that their research indicated that Afghan and Eritrean nationals were more than 20 times more likely to commit a sex crime than British nationals. Councillor Perry reflected that he felt it was inappropriate that people from Afghanistan and other countries needed to be considered as part of this Motion, and that no lives mattered until Black Lives Mattered, as there had been centuries of discrimination, and sought further clarity on the Motion including what the training proposed meant in practice, and what was meant by a zero tolerance approach to violence in public spaces. Councillor Payne provided a point of clarification, noting that the Centre for Migration Control was a think tank and that statistics are not available or recorded as there were no recordable official statistics linking crime and immigration. Councillor Perkes shared that the Council commissioned a range of domestic abuse services and shared some examples, such as the Safer Vale Dark Project, which noted that in March 2025, 39 children were involved or at home during a domestic abuse incident, and considered the staff and support that may be needed to support their well-being, particularly within a school setting. She indicated that official statistics highlighted that women and girls were twice as likely to experience domestic abuse compared to men, and that Vale Domestic Abuse Services focused upon lasting change and ensuring domestic abuse and sexual violence were not tolerated within our communities. She further reflected upon the cost of this, personally to people who may be fleeing and need a safe home to live in, and to society as a whole, and that during the White Ribbon Vigil, Jane Hutt MS had talked opening one of the first refuges in Cardiff approximately 40 years ago, and that we had still not seen progress as a society. She closed by raising awareness of several initiatives such as Ask and Act Training and the Ask for Angela scheme and encouraged Members to get involved. Councillor Hennessy recommended that all Members support this Motion. Councillor Aviet thanked all for their support in the Chamber and shared that they were a 10-year survivor of domestic abuse and reflected that it only took one event to need to run away with your children in the middle of the night and not go back. She further shared that it could be considered like a hostage situation, with no access to phones, family or friends alongside being monitored on a 24-7 basis, and that when people left this situation, they were at their most vulnerable as most people were killed after they had left. Councillor Thomas indicated that this did not happen in a vacuum, that was an impact of wider society in general, and shared that the Live Well Task and Finish Group had been looking at participation in sport, with one of the barriers for women being around the way they were treated in a misogynistic way, being undermined by boys based on their abilities and appearances, which contributed to attitudes later in life if it remained unchallenged. Councillor Protheroe stressed that this behaviour had been normalised for young people, that everyone knew someone who had experienced violence, intimidation or abuse, and that we needed to teach sons and boys through schooling and relationships that this was not normal behaviour, and to teach girls to not accept it, irrespective of creed or cultural background. Councillor Sivagnanam said that we needed to create a fair, equal and safe society, with a focus upon prevention and supporting survivors. She reflected that as a mother of 2 daughters, this issue was in prevalent in society and the Council should be proud to support this motion. Councillor Burnett closed thanking Members, including Councillor Goodjohn as Youth Champion as an example to young people in the Vale, and clarified that the motion was not about demonising men and whilst men and boys suffered abuse, this disproportionately impacted women and girls. She thanked a range of other Members for their contributions and indicated that this was not about demonising people. Councillor Burnett thanked Councillor Aviet for their personal contribution, and Councillor Perkes for their work as responsible Cabinet Member. She also noted that elected women in public life are often subjected to abuse, and shared that she frequently, alongside family members, received abuse and intimidation from local bloggers and the impact this could have, and invited Members to a roundtable to take this forward as an initiative. Following a request from a Member for a Recorded Vote the vote took place as follows: Member For Against Abstain Anne Asbrey √ Julie Aviet √ Gareth Ball √ Member For Against Abstain Rhiannon Birch √ Bronwen Brooks √ Gillian Bruce Ian Buckley √ Lis Burnett √ Samantha Campbell √ George Carroll √ Christine Cave √ Charles Champion √ Amelia Collins √ Marianne Cowpe √ Pamela Drake √ Vincent Driscoll √ Anthony Ernest Robert Fisher Christopher Franks √ Wendy Gilligan √ Russell Godfrey Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ Stephen Haines √ Sally Hanks √ William Hennessy √ Member For Against Abstain Nic Hodges √ Mark Hooper √ Catherine Iannucci-Williams √ Gwyn John √ Ian Johnson √ Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √ Julie Lynch-Wilson √ Kevin Mahoney √ Naomi Marshallsea √ Michael Morgan √ Jayne Norman √ Helen Payne √ Elliot Penn √ Sandra Perkes √ Ian Perry √ Joanna Protheroe √ Ruba Sivagnanam √ Carys Stallard √ Neil Thomas √ Rhys Thomas Steffan Wiliam √ Margaret Wilkinson √ Eddie Williams √ Member For Against Abstain Mark Wilson √ Nicholas Wood √ Total 46 0 0 RESOLVED – (1) T H A T a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence across all policies and public spaces be adopted. (2) T H A T training be strengthened so staff can identify and respond to abusive behaviour and coercive control. (3) T H A T education on consent, healthy relationships and gender equality be supported, ensuring safe and accessible reporting routes. (4) T H A T the Council calls for sustainable national funding for VAWG support services. (5) T H A T the White Ribbon accreditation to demonstrate commitment to positive change, supporting gender equality and ending gender-based violence be renewed. Reason for decisions (1-5) Having regard to the vote being carried on the Motion.
The following responses to Member questions as contained within the agenda were presented: (i) Question from Councillor E. Goodjohn Will the Leader give an update on the Council's purchase of the former Wilkinsons building in Barry on Holton Road including its future plans for the site? Reply from the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources Bringing the 22,323sq foot building back into use is the first part of an ambitious plan to breathe new life into the town centre. We aim is to find a way to develop this prime retail space into a vibrant space for small businesses and other activities that will drive footfall in the town centre. In the short term, and as Members will no doubt have seen, the building’s windows will feature seasonal art displays to attract shoppers and brighten Holton Road, while work is carried out to make the store ready for occupation. This work has already begun following the exchange of contracts with the vendor and we are so eager to make progress, we have ensured that we can have access to the building to undertake this work in advance of completion. The long-term plan for the site will be developed in partnership with local businesses and the wider community. This will be a lengthier process and so in the meantime from early 2026 the Council will use the building to support local businesses by hosting activities designed to attract people into the town centre. Work is required to ensure the building can be reopened, but as soon as possible we will use the space to host events and exhibitions that attract people to the town centre. We would love to hear residents’ ideas for these activities. In the longer term, we aim to create something that adds real value to Holton Road. There are excellent examples elsewhere in Wales where the right scheme has transformed a town centre, and we want to work with local businesses and the people of Barry to design something that achieves the same impact. This is the most significant investment in the town centre for many years and it’s important that we get it right. For this reason, we’ll involve as many people and businesses who share our belief as possible. This investment is about supporting Barry’s high street, its retailers, and giving more people a reason to visit the town. The acquisition, with support from Welsh Government, forms part of the Council’s wider strategy to support town centres across the Vale of Glamorgan. This will ensure they remain vibrant, welcoming, and sustainable places for people to live, work, and visit. Supplemental Councillor Goodjohn asked how this work would link with Placemaking and town centre revitalisation, to which the Leader responded that this linked with Placemaking plans and the Plan for Neighbourhoods, and that the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Places would be leading work now moving forward to make sure that it fully fitted with Barry Place Plan. (ii) Question from Councillor G.D.D. Carroll Will the Leader please update the Council on engagement the Authority has had with the Ministry of Defence regarding its use of the Holiday Inn Express in Rhoose to provide housing under the Afghan Resettlement Programme? Reply from the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources I refer Councillor Carroll to the information provided on the FAQs on our website. I have referred him to this in the past. For completeness, we have worked closely with the MoD on the use of St Athan and East Camp under this scheme. The interest in the Holiday inn express was brought to our attention by letter dated 16th April to the Chief Executive. Subsequent to receipt of that letter, the Chief Executive responded and a meeting held to discuss further the MOD’s position. When it became clear that the hotel would be brought into use, we engaged with a view of offering support and are proud to do so. Since then, and as you can imagine, our officers have been working hard to ensure that guests have access to the support they need and are given a warm welcome. I would ask Councillor Carroll in joining me to congratulate them for their hard work and dedication. Supplemental Councillor Carroll shared that a recent Sky News investigation surrounding serious allegations made about the Afghan Resettlement Scheme, and wanted to understand if the Council had had discussions with the Ministry of Defence about their impacts upon Vale of Glamorgan, to which the Leader responded that the Council worked closely with all agencies if any concerns arose to deal with them, but that they were not aware of specific allegations and believed the scheme at the Holiday Inn, Rhoose, to be a success. (iii) Question from Councillor S.T. William At the Full Council meeting in September, my colleague Councillor Nic Hodges asked whether you would be willing to put an end to the car parking charges at Bron y Mor as we had concerns that this would affect businesses. The Cabinet Member was not for turning. In November, the popular fish restaurant, Mr Villas, closed its doors at the Knap, citing the charges as a contributory factor in their decision. With business livelihoods and jobs being lost, can I ask, as a matter of urgency, that these car park charges are discontinued, even if only on a temporary basis, while a thorough review is undertaken? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services As a starting point, it is always sad to see a business close its doors, especially when that business has a long and established history in a town. This is clearly the case here. Clearly many factors can influence that decision, and this can include escalating costs of supplies and energy, staffing costs, a changing customer base as well as a whole host of other reasons. Whilst other factors such as the availability of car parking and the cost of that car parking can be a factor, I do not think it is that straightforward without the benefit of a full assessment of the situation. I would like to wish all those connected with this popular family business all the very best in their future endeavours and thank them for their contribution to this part of Barry. You will already have had the benefit of my / the Leader’s statement (delete as necessary) on this matter at the start of the meeting and you will have seen recent announcements regarding the same. For completeness, a report will be considered by Cabinet on Thursday, 4 th December 2025 that considers the current position in relation to car parking charges at Penarth Cliff Walk, Cold Knap and Bron y Mor and takes into account the fact that charges were introduced at a challenging time of year for businesses with shorter daylight hours, changeable weather and a decline in trade due to decreasing visitor numbers following the end of school summer holidays. The report recommends the temporary suspension of charges, until a further report is brought back to Cabinet to consider the need or otherwise for a seasonal approach to the charging regime. People, and I include members of all political persuasion in this, are always ready to criticise the Council for not listening or taking views into account. This is one example where we have listened, where we have reflected and where we have conceded that we didn't get this quite right – so it is only right that we press pause and reflect. We were eager to do this before Christmas so that there is certainty for residents and businesses. I know there will be Members who will say – We told you so, but rather than score political points, I would ask that Members acknowledge the stance we have taken and support it. Supplemental Councillor William welcomed the change of direction and asked that given local businesses were supported by a number of suppliers, what evidence would be used to reconsider these charges and when works would be completed at Bron-Y-Mor car park. The Cabinet Member responded that there would be a range of processes included in informing the future direction of car parking and that whilst work was underway at Bron-Y-Mor, if much more was spent on it, it would cause budgetary pressures, and work to install underground drainage was underway, but that there would hopefully be a sufficient throughout of users to pay and further fund this work. (iv) Question from Councillor E. Goodjohn Last month we were pleased to be joined in commemoration of Armistice by a number of Afghans who had supported our Armed Forces. Could the Cabinet Member provide details of the support currently provided to assist the families to integrate into their new Country and new lives during the time they are in the Vale of Glamorgan? Reply from the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources The Council is commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to provide support and welfare services to all arriving guests. The families will have received UK cultural awareness briefings prior to arrival to speed their progression to settled accommodation, jobs and being able to contribute to their new communities. Further induction briefings are given after arrival which ensures they understand life in Wales, including Welsh and UK laws and customs. The Vale Support Team assist the families with immediate essential tasks, such as setting up Universal Credit, National Insurance Numbers, registering with GPs, opening Bank Accounts etc. Over the first few weeks this is followed with regular meetings with the families as groups and individuals, offering lessons on cultural awareness, cost of living, public transport. The support team, including translators, also accompany the guests on their first trips to a variety of service providers and health appointments. Education colleagues also attend the site so children are enrolled in and attend local schools and all adults receive English language lessons every weekday whilst at the hotel. There are weekly group meetings where sessions centre around all aspects of life in the UK. The Holiday Inn Express provided interim accommodation for the EPs we support and at the outset settled accommodation searches and move on options are discussed as well as an opportunity for the family to raise any questions they may have. We have had an exceptional response and support from the Rhoose community and the local church arranging donations of clothing, toys and uniform, arranged coffee mornings and activities for the families. The Support team have also arranged and co-ordinated a number of local activities and events over the last few weeks. The Support team have taken families to Porthkerry (weather permitting) to play football, take children to the airport, arrange a week of activities so families can learn about UK traditions such as Halloween and Christmas. A local choir is due to visit, hopefully looking to recruit some new members, Barry Library visits weekly for Rhyme and sign sessions with the younger children, a weekly FAN (Friends and Neighbours Group) is held at the hotel for the women and the community police team have visited and held group sessions covering topics such as hate crime, domestic abuse etc. We have recently appointed a Nationwide Private Rent Procurement Officer. This role will solely concentrate on assisting the families to find and secure settled accommodation in the form of PRS in the areas of the families choosing. Our main aim is to ensure that we provide as far as possible the best experience we can for our guests for as long as they are with us and to provide the foundations for a successful integration into the communities, they eventually settle in. (v) Question from Councillor G.D.D. Carroll Will the Cabinet Member please update the Council on action being taken to deliver the objectives set out in the Authority’s Strategic Equality Plan? Reply from Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services An annual update on the delivery of the Council’s Strategic Equality Plan is reported to Cabinet and Scrutiny each year. Most recently work undertaken in 2024/25 was reported to Cabinet on 4th September and Live Well Scrutiny Committee on 11th November. Given this very recent report, I am surprised at the question – perhaps Councillor Carroll has not had time to consider and reflect on the progress made by this Authority. Supplemental Councillor Carroll asked that many public sector training and grant funding opportunities had come to light which were only for people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and sought assurance that the Council operated no such schemes, to which the Cabinet Member responded they would not provide this assurance and they would support the seeking of training and funding to support any individual with protected characteristics. (vi) Question from Councillor A.M. Collins Can the Cabinet Member provide an update on progress of all planning applications for the Barry Docks Incinerator Site on Woodham Road in Barry, and any discussions with the owners around the options for future uses of the site? Reply from Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources A demolition application decision notice was issued on 7th November 2025, which includes a requirement for further approval of the method and means of demolition, in the form of a Demolition Environmental Management Plan. This must be approved prior to the demolition works taking place. No further planning application has been submitted for alternative uses of the site and the owners have, to date, not stated what subsequent proposals will seek consent for however we would expect any future uses to be within classes B1 or B2 of the Use Classes Order and would therefore accord with the current Local Development Plan. Supplemental Councillor Collins asked if the Council now accepted that officers were in error when dealing with the important questions relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations in both Barry do incinerator applications, to which the Leader responded no and that the Council had worked to object this proposal at every reasonable opportunity without costing the taxpayer a significant sum. (vii) Question from Councillor E. Goodjohn What are the benefits to local residents of the Council’s recent accreditation as a living wage employer? Reply from Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources Discussions we’ve had with our own employees, many of whom live in the Vale and wider research undertaken by the Living Wage Foundation provides powerful examples of the benefits of the adoption of the Real Living Wage both in terms of employee wellbeing and wider economic impact. This includes the positive impact on mental health and wellbeing, reduction in financial stress, improved quality of life and reduction of families in poverty. This also translates to increased ability to spend within the local economy and the Council’s ability to attract employees from the local community to undertake key roles within the communities we serve. In addition to the financial benefits to employees and the economic impact stated above, research into those organisations who have introduced the Real Living Wage has reported a range of business and wider economic benefits including reduced absenteeism, increased productivity and improved ‘employer of choice’ perceptions. Our own equalities impact assessment, cited in our July Cabinet report, highlighted the broader economic benefits of accreditation, noting that since 2016, around 20,400 additional people in Wales have been uplifted to the RLW, adding £141 million in additional income for low-wage earners. The Cabinet report also cited the recent Future Generations report (2025), which was based on extensive evidence including: Research and analysis of Well-being of Wales report and identified the adoption of Real Living Wage by public bodies as a critical step to reducing poverty. Supplemental Councillor Goodjohn asked how the Real Living Wage would improve wages for those who were not Council employees, to which the Leader responded that the Council would increasingly try and commission from local businesses, Real Living Wage could be one of the procurement criteria, and that she hoped we could talk to other businesses in the Vale of Glamorgan about the benefits to employees around adopting the Real Living Wage. (viii) Question from Councillor G.D.D. Carroll How much funding has the Council provided to third sector organisations to date in the 2025-26 financial year? Reply from Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources We have paid £5.6m to date to the voluntary sector including passporting on grant and SLA arrangements as part of service delivery and we expect to spend approximately £11.6m in 2025/26 financial year. Supplemental Councillor Carroll asked if the Council would follow BBC, ONS and Home Office in withdrawing from the Stonewall Diversity Scheme to which the Leader responded the Council would not be withdrawing, and that was important to support LGBTQ+ colleagues. (ix) Question from Councillor C.P. Franks What action is the Vale Council taking to increase accessibility at Vale of Glamorgan railway stations through the introduction of lifts? Reply from Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services The Council fully supports improved accessibility at all railway stations throughout the Vale. This includes identifying routes leading to train stations on the Active Travel Network Map. There is a current consultation that Members have been invited to feedback on and it can be found on the Council’s website. Whilst the Council has an element of control and influence over the highway and other public land, it does not have the same control or the same level of influence over the intentions or ambitions relating to land under the ownership and control of Transport for Wales and Network Rail. With regard to recent requests for access improvements, I can confirm that with support from the Council, Eastbrook and Cogan stations which are owned by Network Rail, were submitted as part of the Wales nominations for the Department for Transport’s Access for All (AFA) programme in Control Period 7 (which ends March 2029). It was announced in May 2024 that neither station was successful in securing AFA funding, but Cogan made the top 10. There are plans being developed for a new transport interchange at Cogan and this sits as part of a larger scheme on the Regional Transport Delivery Plan. This potentially includes accessibility improvements such as lifts and enhancements to the existing highway network. As part of the proposed improvements at Cogan, a survey is currently being undertaken by Transport for Wales on the proposal for the new interchange. This includes an online survey and a drop-in session at Cogan Coronation Club on 2nd December between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Supplemental Councillor Franks asked what was being done to improve access to Eastbrook Station, to which the Cabinet Member advised they would discuss this with the relevant officers. (x) Question from Councillor B. Loveluck-Edwards The Senedd has introduced significant reforms aimed at strengthening standards, transparency, and accountability among MSs. These changes respond to growing public concern about integrity in politics. Can the Leader advise this Council if there is any intention to review our own Code of Conduct to ensure that the public can expect acts by any Councillor deliberately misleading the public are dealt with immediately and that there is a public correction of false statements? Reply from the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources Thank you for the question. I welcome the steps taken by the Senedd to strengthen standards, transparency and accountability because public confidence in democracy depends on those values being upheld at every level. Members of this Council, just like Members of the Senedd, have a responsibility to ensure that the information we share is accurate and that we correct the record when it is not. All Members are bound by the statutory Model Code of Conduct, this Code must be adopted by every Welsh Authority in full, ensuring that the standards expected of elected representatives are clear and consistent across Wales. As Members will know, Code of Conduct training is mandatory, and Group Leaders also have responsibilities under statute to promote high standards within their Groups. We continue to strengthen support for Members, with further Code of Conduct refresher training scheduled next week and a recent Local Government Association (LGA) session held on misinformation. I would draw Members’ attention to the LGA’s Guide to disinformation for Councillors, which provides practical advice on challenging misleading statements, whether by ignoring, informing, refuting, or escalating as appropriate. Last December, Full Council agreed a Motion committing us to model respectful political discourse, challenge unacceptable behaviour, and review both the standards of conduct expected of Members in Section 19 of the Constitution and the Local Dispute Resolution Procedure. These expectations are not new, our Constitution already prohibits Members from publishing or spreading false information about one another, and we have established mechanism, including the ability to correct the public record through minutes, to ensure accuracy when statements made in meetings are disputed. A working group of the Standards Committee is currently reviewing the Local Dispute Resolution Procedure, with future sessions focusing on Section 19 and the standards of conduct expected of members. This work is ongoing and is expected to conclude before the Spring of 2026, after which any recommendations will come to Full Council for debate. Ultimately, the public deserves openness and honesty from elected representatives. Strengthening guidance, expectations and accountability around misinformation is an important part of that work. (xi) Question from Councillor G.D.D. Carroll What action is the Leader taking to ensure decisions taken by her Administration are subjected to scrutiny and debate? Reply from the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources Thank you for the question. To understand the Council decision making processes and how decisions are subjected to Scrutiny and debate, I would refer the Member to the Council’s Constitution, shaped by a range of statutory legislation and guidance, which outlines how decisions are made, and how Members can get involved in scrutinising and debating decisions are being made by Cabinet and Council. Supplemental Councillor Carroll noted that Penarth business owners said that new parking charges imposed by this Council had slashed trade by almost 40%. Will the Leader accept that she should have listened to concerns raised at Scrutiny Committees of this Council about these charges instead of imposing them regardless, to which the Leader responded there were numerous factors related to a business going up and down, including weather, school holidays, and what was happening in the vicinity, and that it was only when we fully understood the factors that we made a decision. She noted that as mentioned earlier we were looking to take a break in charges and re-look at them in Spring. (xii) Question from Councillor M.J. Hooper Following the recent announcement that Cardiff will be hosting a number of high profile matches as part of the European Championships 2028 tournament, what preparations are the Council making to take advantage of this opportunity for marketing, tourism and to increase participation in sport? Reply from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Sustainable Places A targeted campaign will be developed in the run up to, during and beyond the event which highlights Wales as a destination for followers not only of football, but also wider audiences on the back of the platform this brings. Visit Wales are likely to develop ‘on-location’ visual advertising, TV advertising, digital adverts etc and a toolkit for the trade to follow when maximising opportunities. We will be working with Visit Wales to maximise our efforts in promoting the Vale though ‘Visit the Vale’ during this time. We will develop content across platforms supporting the wider Visit Wales campaign to target these audiences, and work with our trade in ensuring they are informed of and support campaigns for the benefit of their businesses. In addition, as partners of Visit Southern Wales, a 10 local authority partnership marketing the SE Wales region to UK and Overseas group travel organisers, we will also be targeting European destinations through this campaign. As we will be attending Britain and Ireland Marketplace in particular in January, we can ensure Visit the Vale will be integral to those discussions and highlight the close proximity and opportunities the Vale can offer to those visiting as part of the Euros and wider. (xiii) Question from Councillor G.D.D. Carroll What action is the Council taking to prevent and mitigate the risk of flooding in the Vale of Glamorgan? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services The Council has identified a number of local objectives and measures in the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy to help prevent and mitigate the risk of flooding in the Vale. These are focused on reducing consequences, raising awareness, responding to events and prioritising investment in the most at-risk communities. Measures range from the operational inspection and maintenance of high-risk assets through to developing new flood alleviation schemes. As an example, the Council is currently delivering a Welsh Government grant funded scheme to install property flooding resilience measures to over 180 residential properties and a number of community buildings, in Dinas Powys. The Council also plays a key role investigating flood incidents and ensuring the appropriate risk management authorities are aware of and responding to flood incidents. As regulators of the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Approval Body function, and as a consultee via the planning process, this also helps prevent additional flood risks being created by inappropriate development. These activities are in addition to other day to day activities such as the cleansing and maintenance of highway drainage. Supplemental Councillor Carroll asked if the Council would commit more resources for the inspection and repair of blocked drains to minimise future flood risks, to which the Cabinet Member responded that they had been undertaking increased inspection in the last few months due to the inclement weather, but would look at future budgets to see how this could be considered. (xiv) Question from Councillor S.J. Haines Given that approximately 1,700 acres of brownfield land suitable for business development are available within Saint Athan at the Bro Tathan and Aberthaw sites, can the Council clarify its current policy on permitting industrial development on greenfield sites with the Saint Athan ward? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services Policy on industrial development in the Vale of Glamorgan in contained in the Adopted Local Development Plan, specifically at Policies MG9 MD15, MD16. The Council would expect all development to accord with the requirements of the current Local Development Plan. Supplemental Councillor Haines asked that given that there was pre-planning consultation for a battery storage facility consisting of multiple shipping containers container units at Gilestone, did the Cabinet Member agree that a development of this nature would be more appropriately cited on the Brownfield site brownfield sites, to which the Cabinet Member responded that they did not have the specific information surrounding this application but would provide a written response. (xv) Question from G.D.D. Carroll How much has the Council spent carrying out repairs and maintenance work on Llandough Hill in the past 3 years? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services There has been £15,281.09 spent on highway maintenance works and £62,488.54 on resurfacing. Supplemental Councillor Carroll asked what action the Council was taking to ensure that its suppliers were held accountable for any defective repair works that may be carried out, to which the Cabinet Member responded that the Council had an inspection regime, and that people should bring forward any concerns or complaints they may have to be looked at.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.